November 18th, 2014

When we teach karate, it goes something like: “The attacker tries to punch you in the nose. First, you respond with a head block. Next, you grab his wrist, pull him toward you, and punch to the solar plexus. Third, you…”

Aikido lessons go something like:

Attacker grabs sensei’s wrist

Sensei throws attacker across the room

Sensei says “ikkyo” and indicates we should try.

I, as an Aikido beginner, am left wondering what the heck just happened and what kind of sinus problem “ikkyo” indicates.

My senseis have pointed out that I still need to “learn to see”, so I can understand what’s happening when they demonstrate a technique, and have encouraged me to focus first on watching footwork. That’s beneficial, but hasn’t helped me understand the explanatory terms that are thrown around casually in class that are foreign to even my karate background.

Most Aikido dictionaries I’ve found online are either incomplete, or TOO complete, making it difficult for a newbie to navigate. So, in the interest of simplicity, here’s what I’ve gleaned from 3 months of Aikido:

PEOPLE

uke (oo-kay) - attacker

nage (nah-gay) - defender

TECHNIQUES

ikkyo (ee-kyoh) - “first teaching”. A technique that focuses on manipulating the elbow

nikkyo (nee-kyoh) - “second teaching”. A technique that focuses on manipulating the wrist

(There seems to be a great deal of overlap between the techniques, so I’m still not 100% clear on what distinguishes them.)

October 23rd, 2014

One soldier, Cpl Nathan Cirillo, died of his injuries. Three other people were treated in hospital and released by evening.

Minutes after the attack at the memorial, dozens of shots were fired inside the parliament building.

The gunman was shot dead by Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, 58.

MPs applauded Mr Vickers for several minutes on Thursday, banging on their desks in support and appreciation of his service and actions a day prior. (Emphasis mine)

***

Canada outlawed the death penalty in 1976. It’s amazing to me how suddenly we’re all in favor of the death penalty when it’s our lives on the line. The gunman’s death was widely recognized as a good thing. I’ll say it again: Sometimes destroying a destroyer is the only way to protect the innocent.

September 25th, 2014

“Two-thirds of incidents ended before police arrived, though only one ended when an armed citizen not working as a security guard responded with gunfire.”

Even more interesting:

“In 21 incidents (13.1%), unarmed civilians successfully stopped the gunman, including 11 by school employees or students

Five incidents (3.8%) ended when armed individuals who were not police exchanged gunfire with the gunman - four security guards and a single armed bar patron”

These facts tell me two things: First, the police cannot protect us in the instant of an altercation, and relying on them could be fatal. Second, self-defense DOES work. Almost 20% of the cases were ended by people defending themselves.

“A large majority of these scenarios, 70%, occurred in businesses or educational environments.”

In other words, the majority of these scenarios occur where firearms are typically prohibited. Unfortunately, the report gives no indication of how many incidents included individuals attempting to defend themselves. Of those 17.9% of incidents stopped by individuals, we have no idea if that represents 100% of the times people attempted to defend themselves or significantly less. While we know self-defense does work, this report gives us little idea of how effectively it works. The fact that this ratio was overlooked suggests to me that law enforcement assume citizens “should” play the victim.

February 18th, 2014

This article presents a rather strong case for deregulation of handguns correlating with a rise in the murder rate in Missouri. Some might think this is egg on the face of pro-gun advocates. In reality, it’s an opportunity for pro-gun advocates to clarify their views.

You see, pro-gun advocates are not against firearm regulation.

Speaking for myself, I believe guns should be licensed in the same way another lethal instrument is licensed: the car. That is, citizens without a criminal record should be educated, required to take a written gun safety test and a gun usage proficiency test, and if they pass be issued with a license to own a gun (without any of this “why do you need it?” nonsense that’s so open to interpretation.) They should also have to recertify on a regular basis.

With that in mind, I think Missouri made a fatal mistake: “The study links the abandonment of the background check to an additional 60 or so murders occurring per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012.” (emphasis mine)

My goal is to empower law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, and guns are often the most effective way to do so. At the same time, I want to keep guns OUT of the hands of criminals. A criminal background check is a means to that end.

So this is not an excuse for “tighter gun regulation” or another attempt to ban handguns. Rather, it is another opportunity to let common sense rule.

January 17th, 2014

Most refreshing about this article, is it seems we finally have a police officer (notably, a woman) who gets it: “The gun’s launch has led Indians to debate whether carrying a gun makes a woman safer. Ram Krishna Chaturvedi, the chief of police for Kanpur and several nearby districts, thinks it does.

“It is definitely a good idea. If you have a licensed weapon, it increases your self-confidence and creates fear in the minds of criminals,” she says.”

Housewives, too, see the value: “Pratibha Gupta, a housewife and student in Kanpur. [says]… ‘If the person in front of me knows that I have a gun, he will hesitate to touch me…’”

Sadly, the group causing the most problems for Indian women protecting themselves is the government. “Most public places in India do not allow guns - and many offices, malls, cinemas, theatres and markets are equipped with metal detectors to enforce this.

Even if the Delhi rape victim had owned a gun, he says, it would not have been much help, considering she was returning home after watching a film in a theatre in a mall where she wouldn’t have been allowed to carry her weapon.

And if she had been armed, and she had shot any of her attackers the chances are she would have spent the rest of her life in jail on charges of murder, he says.”

Ironically, it is the opponents to gun ownership who offer the biggest reason it’s necessary: “Binalakshmi Nepram, founder of the Women Gun Survivors Network [says]… ‘The authorities saying, ‘Hey woman, come there’s a new gun for you which will make you safer,’ is an admission of failure on their part.’”

Also, “But many frightened women had little faith in a largely corrupt and inefficient police force.”

Indian women are realizing, due to tragic necessity, what writers of the U.S. Constitution already knew: “Large numbers [of women] enrolled in self-defence classes and began stocking up on pepper spray cans. Some reports suggested there was a rise in the number of women seeking gun licences.”

January 7th, 2014

“The trade gap dropped by 12.9% to $34.3bn (£20.9bn) in November, the smallest monthly deficit since October 2009, the US Commerce Department said.

Imports fell 1.4% from October as a fall in demand for foreign oil…

Exports rose 0.9%, boosted by a 5.6% rise in petroleum exports”

Um… we’re importing foreign oil and exporting our own? Does this make any sense at all? Maybe, like we often see in the press, we could “reduce our dependence on foreign oil” if we’d KEEP OUR OWN @#$%! OIL IN THE COUNTRY!